In this thread, people making all sorts of claims about print() debugging being better because of speed, efficiency, less overheard, “debuggers are too hard”, etc. on and on, but not actually providing evidence for their claim. For example, how do you know it’s faster for you? Less overheard by what comparison? Like did you give a debugger an equal and fair shot for some appreciable amount of time? I routinely probe these type of assertions from my coworkers about print()’s superiority and find that ~75% of the time, they’ve never given the debugger a fair trial or invested in understanding all it’s strengths and capabilities. ~25% of the time they’ve done a fair comparison and print() debugging is indeed the right choice for their context. Fine. Good for them! Every now and then someone takes me up on teaching them how to use a debugger effectively though and they are almost without exception, albeit begrudgingly, astounded at what they’ve been missing out on only using print().
Obviously it’s not useless if people find it useful such as the people who compete. By some metric you care about it may be “useless”, but who made you the arbiter of metrics? Competitive programming may or may not correlate with success at say software engineering, but that isn’t grounds to say it’s useless. An Olympic archer may or may not be a terrible bow hunter in the wilderness but they still have a clear skill that is useful by metrics such as people want to watch it, practice it, and compete in it. Dualist thinking like this where things are strictly good/bad, useful/useless, etc. is a really limiting thought pattern. How about instead of “is this thing useful OR useless?” we ask “in what ways is this thing useful? In what ways is this thing not useful? How can we best leverage these properties?”
If they aren’t “fastidious about truth” probably. If they are, and they know you are being “curious”, you will likely have a cool, engaging conversation on your hands.
The police are being told by the governors who are being told by the POTUS that the protestors must “dominated”. I’m not editorializing or interpreting here. Listen to Trump himself say it over and over again in the course of this phone call:
He's says "you've got to dominate them" like 5 times in the first 10 minutes of the call and he's not distinguishing or nuancing between the different types of protesters or allowing for a range of response. It's all "radical left" and "ANTIFA" to hear him tell it. He doesn't given a single acknowledgment in the whole call that these protests are happening directly because of systemic, pervasive police brutality and therefore some sensitivity and humbleness might also be in order here in responding to the situation. So yeah, chilling.
Just use Square’s Cash App! Free stock trades AND you can buy fractional shares AND a bunch of other stuff like P2P payments and bitcoin. I work there and so can say with some authority that we can handle more volume without going down than RH can.
Yep, it’s because of all the obnoxious “idea men” out there that try to treat technically skilled makers like ditch diggers who just need to be told where to dig the hole and how big.
That stuff is way too salty though with a pretty thin flavor profile. You can at least find liquid stocks with no sodium so you can add a lot of flavor and then salt to taste. Even their reduced sodium version is too salty. Liquid no sodium stocks still aren’t awesome either but I think it’s better overall than the Better than Boulion options.
Depends on who you ask though. You have the equivalent of Applebee’s lovers in every country who will tell to go there. You also need to ask them some foodie shibboleths or you’re going to have a bad time.
False. Algorithmic bias was present from the very beginning. One way or another, directly or indirectly, algorithms only do what people tell them to do.
Currently reading David Foster Wallace's collection of essays book titled "Consider the Lobster". I get a similar feelings about the topics of the essays because of his great, quirky-for-journalistic-essay style in them.
The introvert/extrovert dimension is as predictive as the identical dimension in the Big 5. I've made great use of knowing when a colleague, friend, etc. is introvert or extrovert regardless of which test told used. Even if MBTI didn't quite hit the mark historically, I don't see why there are so many haters. It's part of working towards better models. It's a worthwhile pursuit to try to characterize stuff like personality. MBTI is strictly more useful than Astrology just as BIg5 is strictly more useful than MBTI. Future models will surpass these with things like hybrid self-report + neuro-imaging approaches. People really seem to feel threatened by being characterized though. It's a bummer.